2

I see this type of inference made a lot, for example in the context of distributional justice: A makes an investment. He thinks this investment was a rational decision, until he learns that B also profited from him making this investment. He now no longer thinks the investment was rational, and that some measure must be taken to prevent these "undeserved profits" on B's part from occurring. Even when B is not seen as an enemy but the general attitude towards B is neutral.

Since B is not an enemy who's benefit is seen as a problem in itself, and the act was seen as rational in itself, to infer from the new evidence of B's benefit that the act is no longer rational (or even weaker: that there is some ethical problem with this situation) is clearly a fallacy. Is there a widely used name for this?

edit: thanks to the answer and comments, and after considering some examples, i have come to the conclusion that my question is indeed describing a situation that doesn't really occur. in those situations that i was thinking of, an action is criticized not for being irrational but for being unjust, despite leaving everyone better off than before. while i find this intuitively odd it is not a fallacy.

  • I'm not sure we have enough details to tell if this is actually a fallacious inference. For instance, if B is known to make bad decisions and you realize you acted as B did, then that is some evidence that your decision is a bad one. – Eliran Mar 10 at 19:04
  • the inference i am interested in makes no further assumptions than the ones I mentioned. the action is deemed bad only because it has some unintended side effect of benefiting someone else who "did nothing to earn" this benefit. – user3636325 Mar 10 at 20:16
  • The only formal problem in this scenario I see is the free-rider problem. Here B is a free-rider (aka parasite), and indeed this legitimately can effect the rationality of the investment, as it can lower profits, or longer term even make a profitable investment into an unprofitable one. However B is benefiting from but not contributing to this arrangement, that money has to come from somewhere, and it’s either A’s pocket directly, or the returns which otherwise would be reinvested and improve the system, etc. – Dan Bron Mar 11 at 11:51
  • This involves ethical values, and is not obviously fallacious. The assessment of one's status in a society is always relative, so learning that B gains a benefit of the same sort as A (be it money or a distinction) does legitimately devalue it for A. To a degree, this is associated with values such as justice (beyond that it becomes envy, an extreme case is described in Aesop's fable Greed and Envy). This may not mean that the decision was outright "irrational", but it certainly alters the utility calculation significantly. – Conifold Mar 11 at 19:02
  • There is a mistake of some sort being committed here, which concerns the inference from the new availability of information to the irrationality of the previous decision. This could be viewed as an instance of what Wikipedia names a Historical Fallacy (attributing it to Dewey). – Paul Ross Mar 16 at 13:40
1

The only actor in your scenario appears to be B. There can be no fallacy without an argument, so if B isn't arguing with anyone, then there's no fallacy.

...or is it possible to subconsciously use a fallacy while arguing with oneself? Maybe someone else can educate us on that one.

However, even if people can hurl fallacies at themselves, this still doesn't sound like a fallacy to me. As others have suggested, if B is arguing with himself, then he needs to offer more details if he wants someone to tell him what fallacy he's committing.

If B sees some kind of ethical problem with this situation, for example, then it would help to know a little about his ethical standards. I can envision situations in which I would LOVE to see (certain) people profit from my actions and (certain) other people ruined by the same actions.

  • ...is it possible to subconsciously use a fallacy while arguing with oneself? Yes, it's very common for people to lie to or deceive themselves. Many people are often delusional. Every time we use our own mental reasoning internally (which hopefully is fairly often, for some of us) it could be said that we are 'talking to' or 'arguing with' ourselves. – Bread Mar 11 at 1:28
  • 1
    Thanks for clarifying that. It adds an interesting twist to fallacies. ;) – David Blomstrom Mar 11 at 2:03
  • maybe it is more a behavioral bias than a fallacy in its most common form, but if one accepts this kind of reasoning internally one will probably also use it to convince others. i will try to add a concrete example to the question later. – user3636325 Mar 11 at 6:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.